TIES carried this article by one of our users, Dr. Victor Sheaffer, Technology Coordinator at Green Fields Country Day School (4-12). The article describes Dr. Sheaffer's introduction of a robotics unit into his physics class.

By the end of this first-time course the class had created robots to deal cards, spoon cereal, get and retrieve CD's, and serve and return a ping-pong ball over a net!

The students and their robots were featured in a five-minute story produced by their local public television station and aired at the end of the term. In fact, all photos in the article were captured from a tape of the TV station's broadcast.

As soon as it is ready, we expect to have the Green Fields robot curriculum available for free downloads from this site.

Permission to reproduce a photo at our website of the animatronic robot pictured on the magazine cover was declined by its maker. The picture has been blocked out.

plus two more article pages, not shown.

Text of the article follows, with pictures interspersed...

                     /*******************
                     *** THE FOURTH R ***
                     *******************/

by Dr. Victor Sheaffer
Technology Coordinator
Green Fields Country Day School


Before becoming a teacher, I spent eight years in research and
development at Colgate-Palmolive. That experience showed me 
the importance of presenting current technology topics in 
conjunction with the science curriculum for our middle and high
school students. Combining both textbook learning and hands-on
experiences, today's technology can provide students with
insights and intellectual stimulation. At least that's what my
former students have come back to tell me over the last 15
years.

Each year I try to include different problem solving
projects in my high school physical science courses. Because of
rapid advancements in technology, I've felt that many teaching
materials available at reasonable cost have fallen behind the
current technologies. While the tried-and-true projects are
still classroom successes, courseware involving leading-edge
technology is both important academically and exciting to the
students. My school did not yet have a "Technology" course per
se, and when I became aware of the Robix™  RCS-6 construction
set I decided to introduce a robotics unit. The task was to
incorporate the robots into the Advanced Physics curriculum to
get maximum student benefit and minimum disruption.


To get teachers started, the RCS-6 manual has a
"Projects" section along with an appealing video showing these
projects in action. However, a complete curriculum is not
included. Since the maker of the set is right here in Tucson,
we are now creating a curriculum jointly, and I expect that it
will be completed and available free via the Internet by the
time you read this.

However, even without a specific curriculum the set lent
itself to inclusion in our physics course. At our school, we
encourage a team attitude, a willingness to experiment, and a
cross-disciplinary curriculum. Involving physics students in
robot design fit our general objectives very well.


/***********************************************
*** History is Usually a Good Starting Point ***
***********************************************/

To provide enough time for a positive experience without
sacrificing course content, my 11th and 12th grade physics
students spent a 90 minute block period per week working with
the sets. To start the unit, we viewed the "Projects" video,
and the first work assignment was to write a one page report on
the history of robots, their development, capabilities, and
limitation.

Next, each team wrote a proposal describing what their
robot would do. In retrospect, knowing now how easily the sets
go together, I would instead start by letting students get right
to building a generic arm. Having immediate experience with the
set lets students be both more imaginative and more realistic
with their planning. Either way, it is a quick move through
project definition to the next step...


/******************************
*** Real-Time Classroom R&D ***
******************************/

I found the students eager to begin building their projects.
Since the "Construction Techniques" video included in the set
was self-explanatory, teams were able to work at their own pace
without special assistance from me. Having a classroom of
"organized chaos" can be a fine concept, but a practical
disaster. It was gratifying to see all teams stay focused on
their designs.

In just two weeks, four robot arms were built and connected to
the PC's. The first team built an arm ending in a ping-pong
paddle and the second team incorporated the gripper on an
arm-wrist assembly to deal black-jack. The third teams' arm was
meant to spoon cereal and yogurt from a bowl and feed it to a
team member. The last team built a robot to pick up a compact
disk from a player and return it to a storage tray.

As the students programmed and tested, the actual
experience in problem solving began!  Each group experienced
both frustrations and break-throughs as they realized their
jointed robots did not operate quite the way they had thought.
Rebuilding was the call of the day. Students also began to
realize that overlooking little things often can be the main
deterrent to success.

I was reminded of Edison's quote:  "Genius is 1 percent
inspiration and 99 percent perspiration."

/*********************************************************************
*** A Robotic Engineering Discovery: Two Hands are Better Than One ***
*********************************************************************/

While working with their initial designs, three of the four
teams independently realized that they could solve their
problems more easily by building two simpler robots with their
set, rather than a single, more complex one. A very interesting
and unforeseen development.

The black-jack team realized that making both a "finger"
that lifted a card from the deck plus an arm with gripper that
took the card, flipped and dealt it was easier then building a
single fancier arm to do the whole job. Assembling the lifting
finger took just a few minutes; however, to get the finger to
lift a single card from the deck on the table every time was
tricky. A tacky tape was used to lift the card. Too little
tack and the card would fall back; too much and the gripper hand
had trouble pulling the card away from the tape. Then there was
the occasional problem of two or more cards being lifted at
once, held together by suction. This, they thought, could be
overcome by putting a little powder between the cards to
separate them more easily; but then, the tape would no longer
stick. The students were laughing in frustration by this time.
In a future design, maybe a small suction tube (for lifting) and
a blowing tube for separating cards) made from inexpensive
aquarium parts might help. The next time these students see a
printing press picking up exactly one sheet of paper from a
stack and feeding it on to a set of grippers, they'll know what
that task is all about.


/********************************
*** The Two-Handed CD Handler ***
********************************/

Originally, the group working on the CD-handling project
envisioned a single arm that could move a CD from any place on a
rack to a CD player and then back again. Experimentation showed
this to be tricky, and they hit on the idea of making the
storage rack itself a rotating carousel "robot". There were
then several sub-problems:  the spatial arrangement of the arm
and the carousel had to be adjusted so that the CD's would come
into the right position to be gripped; and the discs had to be
stored with sufficient space between so that the gripper could
grab a single disc. The team also saw that the gripping arm
would not be able to emulate the complex human hand/finger
motions involved in taking a CD from an actual player, so they
made their own version of a player platform for the experiment.
When all was said and done, this team had a graceful machine
that did its job, and a much better appreciation of what a fancy
device the human hand is!


/**************************************
*** The Two-Handed Ping-Pong Player ***
**************************************/

The ping-pong paddler used only two servos, leaving the other
four to make a "server" arm. This arm threw the ball over the
net where it bounced once before being hit back by the paddle
arm. The team had to deal with dynamic coordination of their
robots, a problem the other teams did not face. Accelerations
and speeds were adjusted repeatedly until the paddle was just
perpendicular to the balls' path at the moment of impact. After
many trials, the team made a height adjustment and finally got
the paddle to hit the ball squarely and consistently. To loft
the ball over the net, the paddle was inclined slightly.
Because of the servos' limited power, the paddle was made from
foam-core poster board. When complete, this project could hit
its own serve back across the net about eight times out of nine.

/****************************
*** The One-Handed Feeder ***
****************************/

The feeder was the one project left as only a single, complex
robot arm. Several important details had to be worked out.
Something as simple as the bowl's diameter and height restricted
the elevation and angles of the arm movement. Complex,
multi-step programming was involved in getting the
"dig-and-scoop" motion needed to come up with any cereal at all.
A back-and-forth "shake" of the spoon was added to drop any
loose bits back into the bowl, rather than have them fall off in
transit. Also, the speed and acceleration of the arm had to be
adjusted to prevent pitching food off the spoon when it arrived
at the eater's face.

Compared to this robot, the other projects' robots had
well defined targets. In this task, it was hard to know where
the remaining food would be after a spoonful or two was removed.
The yogurt didn't allow the cereal to consistently settle down
into the bowl the way milk would. The team began understanding
the sensory processing a human makes when performing this task.
By contrast, the robot tended to make an (instructive) mess!

/*********************
*** Course Wrap-up ***
*********************/

For closure, each team submitted a written report which included
their history search, a discussion of their device describing
its abilities and limitations, and a printout of the actual
computer program used in operating their robot(s).


/************************
*** Summary and Plans ***
************************/

The robotic unit was a success in many ways:

*  The process of thinking and learning was shown to be at
least as valuable as the project itself.

*  Ideas germinated by the students were incorporated into
the team-based construction of working robots.


*  Parts from the set as well as auxiliary "scavenged"
materials were used.

*  The mechanics of the total operation had to be
understood before there was success.

*  Computer literacy was required to operate the robots,
using the computer to produce proper movements and speeds.

All these were valuable aspects of learning. Several
additional points became apparent. Students recognized that
they were using realistic robotic equipment and not just toys,
and handled the parts carefully. At completion, all parts were
accounted for. These students also now understand that robots
do not (at present) make decisions, but are about like any other
machines. That is, they do work which we cannot do or would
rather not do ourselves; but they have difficulty doing many
kinds of work which we humans find easy.

Because of the acceptance of the robotics unit and its
immediate success, we plan to compile complete lesson plans and
incorporate robotics into the regular science curriculum. Our
lesson plans will include pre- and post-tests as well as real
world R&D that the students can execute in competitive or
cooperative groups. Concepts in physics and trigonometry will
be included with robotic problem solving.


/*************************************************
*** Outline of 10 Day Lesson Plan for Fall '95 ***
*************************************************/

DAY 1: Introduction. Building an arm.

   Pre-test.

   10-minute "Projects" (from the kit) showing 11 sample
   projects. Begin building the basic robot arm following
   "Construction Techniques" video and the assembly guide.

   Homework:  Write a one-page research report on the
   history, growth and development, and advantage and
   limitations of robots. Alternative:  Read handout of history,
   etc. with questions to be answered.


DAY 2: Finish the arm. Learn programming.

   Finish building the arm and connect to the DOS PC.
   Learn how to interactively program the robot (it's easy) and
   choreograph its motions according to a descriptive list.
   Experiment with different speeds and accelerations.

   Homework:  handout on speed/acceleration and angular
   speed/acceleration with questions and math problems.


DAY 3: Partially disassemble the arm. Speed and acceleration
       experiments.

   Disassemble arm down to the first two servers, then add
   the plastic spoon. (Emphasizes organization:  as unused
   parts are returned to storage case.)  Use worksheet to study
   acceleration effects and document how quickly the ping-pong
   ball can be transported without dropping.

   Homework:  Handout on geometry and trigonometry, with
   questions.


DAY 4: Using Trigonometry.

   Remove spoon from the arm and attach a pen for writing
   onto gridded paper. Program arm to make points and lines.
   Measure distance between points. Use trig functions to
   derive distances from the working angles and arm section
   lengths.

   Homework:  Handout on R&D, and research vs. technology,
   time/cost calculations, with questions.


DAY 5: Post-Test; class R&D problem.

   Post-test (testing is now complete.)

   Specify R&D problem to be solved, form teams, and start
   team design discussions. Plan procurement of additional
   materials from stores (low $ limit).

   Homework:  Have design meetings in person or by phone;
   produce sketches.


DAY 6: First design: build, test, tune.

   Homework:  Get any additional materials for first design
   (low $ limit).


DAY 7: Design is modified as needed, then tuned and tested.

   Homework:  Sketches of completed design.


DAY 8: First demonstration.

   Team robot runs are scored by instructor or by the other
   teams.

   Second iteration design meetings among teams, including
   discussion of what the other teams had done.

   Homework:  Get additional materials as needed for second
   design (low $ limit).


DAY 9: Second design: build, test, tune.

   Homework:  Sketches of the second design.


DAY 10: Final presentation and report.

   Report includes progression of sketches with notes,

   reason for changes, procedures for fine-tuning, and specific
   problems encountered and their solutions.


/*********************
*** END OF ARTICLE ***
*********************/

Dr. Sheaffer is still using the robots and working on his
curriculum, and says he will also expects to be using the
sets with younger students.

We expect to post the Green Fields curriculum at this web 
site as soon as it is available.